The Supreme Court has been informed of impending increases in salary scales for employees in the challenging special care sector of social work. This move is aimed at enhancing staff retention and the provision of more spaces for highly problematic teenagers. Paschal Donohoe’s legal representatives, Minister for Public Expenditure, admitted that the developing scale will not be a quick fix to the long-standing staffing problems in the sector, but indicated a hopeful end to the issue.
The Child and Family Agency (also known as Tusla) operates three special care units for the detainment of high-risk 11-17-year-olds. This is carried out on the authority of a High Court order for a brief period in order to bring their often unstable behaviour under control and to minimise the risk of harm. However, the agency have struggled to accommodate all the children who require special care and have been lawfully ordered for detention. While the agency has a sufficient number of physical beds, they’re facing a severe staff shortage mainly due to inadequate wages tied to public sector pay regulations set by the Department of Public Expenditure.
Even though the Department has continually declined Tusla’s calls for a special care workers salary increase, the agency’s recent proposal (submitted last August) aimed at significantly equalising special care staff pay with the higher rates given to employees at the Oberstown youth detention centre has been approved. The Supreme Court was informed by the Minister’s chief counsel, Gerard Durcan, that talks regarding the details of the new scale are still underway. While the Department still holds the view that money will not solve the problem alone, they believe it’s worth trying this approach, hence the decision to allocate €1 million from the 2025 Budget for special care.
Feichín McDonagh, the senior counsel for Tusla, presented a defence in relation to a Supreme Court appeal made by a mother. The purpose of the appeal was to seek a judgement indicating that Tusla had violated a High Court mandate related to the confinement of her 14-year-old son in a special care environment. Despite the High Court’s instruction coming seven months prior, it was only recently that the child was assigned a place.
There were accusations that, pending a spot in special care, the adolescent faced severe risk. The family’s legal team shared with the court that the boy’s existing care programme had faltered. He was displaying suicidal tendencies and was implicated in the sale of high-risk narcotics.
In March of the past year, the High Court determined that the plea for contempt made by the mother was not properly carried out. The plea ought to have incorporated a motion signalling to move the allegedly contemptuous party before the court.
McDonagh asserted on Tusla’s behalf that the organisation found it unfeasible to adhere to the special care requirement, for which it was legally bound to apply. He emphasised that contempt had to be more than only lack of compliance with the requirement. According to him, it would amount to an intentional neglect or “contumacious disregard” for the mandate.
The argument submitted by McDonagh also brought up procedural inaccuracies in the application.
Mr Justice Maurice Collins raised issues to the legal representatives during the proceeding. Collins noted that the complications related to special care were introduced seven years ago. However, it appeared to him that government bodies were involved in a costly ‘game of pass the parcel’ in the Supreme Court.
Collins praised the adolescent’s social worker for their dedication but commented that the child’s welfare had been compromised by the dealings during the dual-day appeal process.
Mr Durcan stated that the situations surrounding special care were entirely unjustifiable and necessitated resolution. He confirmed that actions were underway to address the issue.
The panel of five judges will pause before adjudicating upon the mother’s appeal.